G77+China, ALBA Back Bolivia in Climate Talks in Bangkok

G77+China and ALBA Back Bolivia in Climate Change Negotiations in Bangkok

“We would like to express our profound worry due to the fact that two decisions were adopted in the framework of the Cancun climate negotiations despite the formal and explicit objection made by a Member State. We consider this a dangerous precedent that should not be repeated under the Framework Convention on Climate Change,” said Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela in the name of the regional group ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our Americas) at United Nations climate talks in Bangkok today. The countries emphasized that “these illegal practices are affecting the Plurinational State of Bolivia, a country that has the same rights as all others, and tomorrow, any other country present here could be affected.”

During the inaugural session of the climate talks, the G77 and China, a group comprising 131 developing countries, said that “as we move toward Durban [for the next annual climate change conference], the path should be to ensure a multilateral process that is transparent, open, and driven by the Member States, and also brings us toward consensus.” The statement alluded to the fact that the adoption of decisions without consensus in Cancun should not be repeated.

In its speech, ALBA backed the positions of Bolivia, saying: “We do not consider the results of Cancun a step forward for the Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol, but rather, a step backward.”

On behalf of the Bolivian delegation, Ambassador Pablo Solón thanked countries for their support and offered the following analogy: “If we compare global warming to a wildfire, we would say that the process of negotiation in Cancun resembled a long meeting of firemen who decided to throw a single bucket of water onto the fire, while declaring, ‘one bucket is better than nothing,’ ‘ the perfect is the enemy of the good,’ and ‘this is just the first bucket’ – then held a press conference to announce that gradual progress was being made, and that they had ‘saved the process of negotiation among the firemen’ while the flames engulfed a town. Solón concluded: “Cancun saved the firemen and their bosses, and now in Durban we have to save the climate and humanity.”

In order for Durban to be a success, and to avoid a catastrophic rise in global temperature of 4° to 5° Celsius during this century, developed countries must make real, domestic emission reduction commitments of 40 to 50%.

4 comments

TIME TO GET REAL Brave Bolivia is still the leader telling the full truth With respect to global climate catastrophe.

But, nothing will happen on global climate policy unless nations are forced to acknowledge that the world is far beyond dangerous interference with the climate system as clearly defined by the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Additionally nations would have to formally acknowledge the real and rapidly rising risk of global climate catastrophe which it may well be too late to avoid even with immediate action. All of these realities of the climate science are explained in Dr. John Holdren’s presentation Meeting the Climate Change Challenge since 2006.

All nations and all international NGOs Have failed to acknowledge the simple and obvious fact that we are beyond dangerous climate interference.

To drive the deplorable lack of political will nations must be forced to acknowledge that we are all living (in all regions) now in a dire state of global climate change planetary emergency.

Only leading climate change expert James Hansen has acknowledged this in 2008.

Progress on climate policy is unlikely to happen without nations being forced to acknowledge that continuing to emit greenhouse gases is the worst ever crime against all humanity and the greatest evil possible, due to the already committed global warming, global climate change, and ocean acidification.

Probably the most important element of transparency in the run-up to Durban is that of alternatives to the toxic energies of coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas.
It’s critically important that we all have this information, yet most of it currently is incarcerated at the US Patent Office, using the pretext of national security but actually in order to protect the profits of Big Oil and their cronies.
The best place to get information on these cutting-edge alternatives is at pesn.com .
Yours for all our relations,
Keith Lampe aka Pondo and Ro-Non-So-Te
Co-founder, US environmental movement in
1969, Living Creatures Associates in 1972,
All-Species Projects in 1978 and founder, US
Pro-Democracy Movement in 1991
Vilcabamba, Ecuador

It is encouraging to see the solidarity shown by the ALBA countries in their support for the rights of Bolivia to be recognized.
However were Ambassador Solon’s suggestion that “developed countries must make real, domestic emission reduction commitments of 40 to 50%” to be adopted by the parties, the scientific evidence indicates we would remain firmly on a course to Climate Catastrophe.
The evidence* demands cuts of the order of 90% by the major emitters. While currently available technology can supply a useful fraction of the energy lost by reducing emissions most of the cuts in emissions must come from changes in production, trade and consumption patterns. In short lifestyle changes. We will need to repopulate the countryside as great cities become obsolete and energy intensive agriculture disappears and rehouse most city dwellers. We should act immediately to close down some industries such as automobile , aircraft and air-conditioning manufacture and this should be agreed on at Durban.
Suggestions such as the above are usually met with ridicule and regarded as totally fanciful, even though a majority of the World’s people have no car, no air-con and never fly.
I would agree it is fanciful to expect the nations to reach consensus on adopting such measures at Durban, but since the World needs humanity to change how can we begin to bring it about?
One possibility is for one of more states to act outside the consensus. For example the ALBA states or the small island states could ban the import and manufacture of automobiles, Airplanes and Air-cons. They could firstly ban air freight operations or overflying and later extend this to passenger flights. If a large country such as Indonesia or India were to join such a stand the effect would be immense and World wide.
These suggestions may be regarded as extreme, but the threat from a warming World is the greatest threat humanity has seen since the dawn of civilization. The threat is far greater even than that posed by the Nazis two generations ago and it requires an appropriately robust response.

We agree that Cancun solutions are akin to insufficiently watering a forest fire. However, UNFCCC procedural rules regarding consensus are not clear enough to warrant a claim of illegality or an appeal to the Hague. (Where does that appeal stand by the way)? Similarly, it is unclear how retroactive political backing from ALBA will really make any diplomatic difference, although ALBA solidarity does represent a modicum of progress for Bolivian climate change diplomacy. However, we see no evidence above that the G77 and China backed Bolivia in any significant way.

What are realistic, attainable and focused goals for Bolivian climate change diplomacy as we move toward South Africa? Goals that are worth the expense Bolivian citizens are paying in money and time?